IMPORTANCEThe benefit of high-dose dexamethasone and oxygenation strategies vs standard of care for patients with severe acute hypoxemic respiratory failure (AHRF) caused by COVID-19 pneumonia is debated.OBJECTIVES To assess the benefit of high-dose dexamethasone compared with standard of care dexamethasone, and to assess the benefit of high-flow nasal oxygen (HFNO 2 ) or continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) compared with oxygen support standard of care (O 2 SC). DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTSThis multicenter, placebo-controlled randomized clinical trial was conducted in 19 intensive care units (ICUs) in France from April 2020 to January 2021. Eligible patients were consecutive ICU-admitted adults with COVID-19 AHRF. Randomization used a 2 × 3 factorial design for dexamethasone and oxygenation strategies; patients not eligible for at least 1 oxygenation strategy and/or already receiving invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) were only randomized for dexamethasone. All patients were followed-up for 60 days. Data were analyzed from May 26 to July 31, 2021.INTERVENTIONS Patients received standard dexamethasone (dexamethasone-phosphate 6 mg/d for 10 days [or placebo prior to RECOVERY trial results communication]) or high-dose dexamethasone (dexamethasone-phosphate 20 mg/d on days 1-5 then 10 mg/d on days 6-10). Those not requiring IMV were additionally randomized to O 2 SC, CPAP, or HFNO 2 . MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURESThe main outcomes were time to all-cause mortality, assessed at day 60, for the dexamethasone interventions, and time to IMV requirement, assessed at day 28, for the oxygenation interventions. Differences between intervention groups were calculated using proportional Cox models and expressed as hazard ratios (HRs). RESULTS Among 841 screened patients, 546 patients (median [IQR] age, years; 414 [75.8%] men) were randomized between standard dexamethasone (276 patients, including 37 patients who received placebo) or high-dose dexamethasone (270 patients). Of these, 333 patients were randomized among O 2 SC (109 patients, including 56 receiving standard dexamethasone), CPAP (109 patients, including 57 receiving standard dexamethasone), and HFNO 2 (115 patients, including 56 receiving standard dexamethasone). There was no difference in 60-day mortality between standard and high-dose dexamethasone groups (HR, 0.96 [95% CI, 0.69-1.33]; P = .79). There was no significant difference for the cumulative incidence of IMV criteria at day 28 among O 2 support groups (O 2 SC vs CPAP: HR, 1.08 [95% CI, 0.71-1.63]; O 2 SC vs HFNO 2 : HR, 1.04 [95% CI, 0.69-1.55]) or 60-day mortality (O 2 SC vs CPAP: HR, 0.97 [95% CI, 0.58-1.61; O 2 SC vs HFNO 2 : HR, 0.89 [95% CI,). Interactions between interventions were not significant. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCEIn this randomized clinical trial among ICU patients with COVID-19-related AHRF, high-dose dexamethasone did not significantly improve 60-day survival. The oxygenation strategies in patients who were not initially receiving IMV did not significantly modify 28-day risk of...

Background Delaying time to prone positioning (PP) may be associated with higher mortality in acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) due to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). We evaluated the use and the impact of early PP on clinical outcomes in intubated patients hospitalized in intensive care units (ICUs) for COVID-19. Methods All intubated patients with ARDS due to COVID-19 were involved in a secondary analysis from a prospective multicenter cohort study of COVID-ICU network including 149 ICUs across France, Belgium and Switzerland. Patients were followed-up until Day-90. The primary outcome was survival at Day-60. Analysis used a Cox proportional hazard model including a propensity score. Results Among 2137 intubated patients, 1504 (70.4%) were placed in PP during their ICU stay and 491 (23%) during the first 24 h following ICU admission. One hundred and eighty-one patients (36.9%) of the early PP group had a PaO2/FiO2 ratio > 150 mmHg when prone positioning was initiated. Among non-early PP group patients, 1013 (47.4%) patients had finally been placed in PP within a median delay of 3 days after ICU admission. Day-60 mortality in non-early PP group was 34.2% versus 39.3% in the early PP group (p = 0.038). Day-28 and Day-90 mortality as well as the need for adjunctive therapies was more important in patients with early PP. After propensity score adjustment, no significant difference in survival at Day-60 was found between the two study groups (HR 1.34 [0.96–1.68], p = 0.09 and HR 1.19 [0.998–1.412], p = 0.053 in complete case analysis or in multiple imputation analysis, respectively). Conclusions In a large multicentric international cohort of intubated ICU patients with ARDS due to COVID-19, PP has been used frequently as a main treatment. In this study, our data failed to show a survival benefit associated with early PP started within 24 h after ICU admission compared to PP after day-1 for all COVID-19 patients requiring invasive mechanical ventilation regardless of their severity.

Background Delaying time to prone positioning (PP) may be associated with higher mortality in acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) due to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). We evaluated the use and the impact of early PP on clinical outcomes in intubated patients hospitalized in intensive care units (ICUs) for COVID-19.Methods All intubated patients with ARDS due to COVID-19 were involved in a secondary analysis from a prospective multicenter cohort study of COVID-ICU network including 149 ICUs across France, Belgian and Switzerland. Patients were followed-up until Day-90. The primary outcome was survival at Day-60. Analysis used a Cox proportional hazard model including a propensity score. Results Among 2137 intubated patients, 1504 (70.4%) were placed in PP during their ICU stay, and 491 (23%) during the first 24 hrs following ICU admission. One hundred and eighty-one patients (36.9%) of the early PP group had a PaO2/FiO2 ratio > 150 mmHg when prone positioning was initiated. Among non-early PP group patients, 1013 (47.4%) patients had finally been placed in PP within a median delay of 3 days after ICU admission. Day-60 mortality in non-early PP group was 34.2% vs. 39.3% in the early PP group (p = 0.038). Day-28 and Day-90 mortality as well as the need for adjunctive therapies were more important in patients with early PP. After propensity score adjustment, no significant difference in survival at Day-60 was found between the two-study groups (HR 1.34 [0.96-1.68], p=0.09 and HR 1.19 [0.998-1.412], p=0.053 in complete case analysis or in multiple imputation analysis, respectively).Conclusions In a large multicentric international cohort of intubated ICU patients with ARDS due to COVID-19, PP has been used frequently as a main treatment. In this study, early PP started within 24 hrs after ICU admission was not associated with a survival benefit compared to PP after day 1.

Background Initial reports have described the poor outcome of unexpected cardiac arrest (CA) in intensive care unit (ICU) among COVID-19 patients in China and the USA. However, there are scarce data on characteristics and outcomes of such CA patients in Europe. Methods Prospective registry in 35 French ICUs, including all in-ICU CA in COVID-19 adult patients with cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) attempt. Favorable outcome was defined as modified Rankin scale ranging from 0 to 3 at day 90 after CA. Results Among the 2425 COVID-19 patients admitted to ICU from March to June 2020, 186 (8%) experienced in-ICU CA, of whom 146/186 (78%) received CPR. Among these 146 patients, 117 (80%) had sustained return of spontaneous circulation, 102 (70%) died in the ICU, including 48 dying within the first day after CA occurrence and 21 after withdrawal of life-sustaining therapy. Most of CA were non-shockable rhythm (90%). At CA occurrence, 132 patients (90%) were mechanically ventilated, 83 (57%) received vasopressors and 75 (51%) had almost three organ failures. Thirty patients (21%) had a favorable outcome. Sepsis-related organ failure assessment score > 9 before CA occurrence was the single parameter constantly associated with unfavorable outcome in multivariate analysis. Conclusions In-ICU CA incidence remains high among a large multicenter cohort of French critically ill adults with COVID-19. However, 21% of patients with CPR attempt remained alive at 3 months with good functional status. This contrasts with other recent reports showing poor outcome in such patients. Trial registration: This study was retrospectively registered in ClinicalTrials.gov (NTC04373759) in April 2020 (https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04373759?term=acicovid&draw=2&rank=1).

Objective: To address the issue of ventilator shortages, our group (eSpiro Network) developed a freely replicable, open-source hardware ventilator. Design: We performed a bench study. Setting: Dedicated research room as part of an ICU affiliated to a university hospital. Subjects: We set the lung model with three conditions of resistance and linear compliance for mimicking different respiratory mechanics of representative intensive care unit (ICU) patients. Interventions: The performance of the device was tested using the ASL5000 lung model. Measurements and Main Results: Twenty-seven conditions were tested. All the measurements fell within the ±10% limits for the tidal volume (VT). The volume error was influenced by the mechanical condition (p = 5.9 × 10−15) and the PEEP level (P = 1.1 × 10−12) but the clinical significance of this finding is likely meaningless (maximum −34 mL in the error). The PEEP error was not influenced by the mechanical condition (p = 0.25). Our experimental results demonstrate that the eSpiro ventilator is reliable to deliver VT and PEEP accurately in various respiratory mechanics conditions. Conclusions: We report a low-cost, easy-to-build ventilator, which is reliable to deliver VT and PEEP in passive invasive mechanical ventilation.